The Epistemology of Creative Inquiry

Mario Spiler Psychotherapist-Mapping Insights, Barrie, Ontario, Canada ABSTRACT The purpose of the chapter is to explore the epistemology of creative inquiry by inquiring about how we know what we know. Areas explored include the nature of questions, inquiry, epistemology, and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) as an exemplary epistemology. Within the NLP field, the roles of a model, modeling processes, presuppositions, beliefs, emotions, the inquirer, the relationship between knowing and doing, as well as creativity and creative inquiry are examined in more detail. Another yet consistent view of inquiry is offered from the perspective of Interpretive Sociology. Solutions and recommendations are offered as a way of maximizing the experience of inquiry. Research directions relate to the discourse of inquiry as a commodity with mutual benefits to the inquirer and the community to which he belongs. It is concluded that all inquiry is self-inquiry resting on an enigmatic irony.

INTRODUCTION More than 30 years ago I came upon a book that would transform me in ways that only gradually made its impact evident as I pursued the life of an inquirer. In preparation for this chapter, I once again perused through the book and I realized how significantly it continues to reverberate through me. The book is called The Encyclopedia of Ignorance: Everything you ever wanted to know about the unknown (Duncan and Weston-Smith, 1977). As with my passion for the pursuit of knowledgeand not to possess itthe intrinsic rewards of learning, understanding and expanding my range of choices available in ways of knowing, are in the relating with the unknown. I do not believe it is coincidence that recently I began using the phrase approaching ever closer to the ever departing unknown, only to be slightly surprised and amused when I read again after so many years the Preface of The Encyclopedia of Ignorance, which stated: Compared to the pond of knowledge, our ignorance remains atlantic. Indeed the horizon of the unknown recedes as we approach it. (P. ix) Our passion for and devotion to approaching the unknown is what inquiry is all about. Inquiry has existed ever since the human species has developed awareness for it. As a topic, it may not be immediately apparent, and asking what it is about suggests something other than a simple answer. For inquiring about the nature of inquiry presupposes one is already engaged in the process. The recursive nature of Inquiry as a process of turning back on itself can be transformative because of the tension it generates between describing the process and exemplifying it. The purpose of inquiry is to recover what inquiry glosses over in its description of what it does.

To ask what is inquiry? is fundamentally an epistemological question. One cannot have a perception without a perceiver, and perception or ways of knowing imply both a what and a how. Inquiries provide their own methods; methods make assumptions; and assumptions make reference to an epistemology. Developing awareness for Inquiry involves a paradoxical sensitivity for what can be known about the unknown. The interface between the two is where the action iswhere transformation takes place! As Bostic St. Clair and Grinder (2001) observe, Neurology and language - those two great sets of transforms that both separate us from, and connect us to, the world around us. Thus do neurology and language make fools of us all, each and every one of us! (P. 10) Ways of resisting to foolishly know that one can know all there is to know, is what creative inquiry is all about. This chapter takes the position that the most fundamental technology available for inquiry, creativity and innovation is consistent with the view that technology is a set of tools to aid in the application of knowledge and values. (Dilts, 1998) Inquirys claim is that wisdom is not found in the technology, but in the user of the technology. As I lay the groundwork of the knowledge system implied by the title of the chapter, The Epistemology of Creative Inquiry, the application of the self-reflexive process will become increasingly evident as an embodiment of the relationship between the inquirer and his inquiry. Additionally, the proposal is put forth that the discourse of creativity has the potential of creatively enhancing 1) creative inquirers and their institutional scholarly communities when viewed as commodities, and 2) the dual aim of producing, distributing and consuming the best scholars to support and promote the ongoing success of their educational institutions to ensure the future marketability of such scholars and institutions. Silverman distinguishes between two kinds of Introduction (1975, p. 1) In one, the usual emphasis is on substance and theme and provides major concepts and theories. It offers an overview of the subject matter as a whole, while allowing one to understand and get the gist to relate the subject area to other major interests. This allocates to the reader a passive role in learning a cluster of facts much like an empty box into which information has to be pumped. Another kind of Introduction emphasizes what it is to reason in the manner of the discipline and aims at the joint participation of writer and reader in negotiating the character of that reasoning. (P. 1) In the latter, greater importance is placed on the interaction between reader and text so that what matters is thinking together, where together' relates to others that are always present with us in our language. What matters is what you make of it as an expression of your membership within the community of our language. Referring equally to a Preface, Sandywell et. al. (1975) elaborate on this second approach: What escapes our attention here is the feature that the preface acts not as a set of instructions for reading a work as the author's writing but as instructions for reading the work as the author's reading of his own writing. But should we not warn the reader of this seduction and supply him with the tools for re-writing the work as his reading? (P. 2) It is the aim of this chapter to supply the reader with some reading tools to contribute to his own inquiry of what is presented here. The discussions that follow begin with a brief and typical description of what is Inquiry. Inquiry implies ways of knowing, and this leads to a discussion about the epistemological domain. The recursive aspect of epistemology leads to exploring how a knowledge system takes itself into account, i.e., 2

becomes self-aware. One such model is NLP, which takes the inquirers subjective experience as a starting point for the assumption that an inquiry implies an inquirer. Creativity and inquiry are then examined in greater detail. Recursive epistemology is naturally and always implicated in creative inquiries. How the relationship between knowing and doing is embodied becomes the central issue. Useful distinctions are made as part of clarifying the terminology used in the discussion of the discourse of creativity. Recommendations and future directions are offered.

BACKGROUND Questions Simply stated, a question seeks an answer. The quest becomes more complicated when a question is questioned. We end up in deep recursive territory when a question questions itself. From the way the different types of questions are framed, one would easily conclude that the interest of this chapter is a function of the level of complexity displayed by the question. However, even the apparent simplicity and triviality of a question is examined more for its quest value than for its intelligence. The explicit nature of a question is to seek an answer. The implicit or tacit nature of a question reveals something about the orientation of the questionerwhat he considers important and worth asking about, what assumptions he makes, and the intent of the relational engagement, i.e., what outcome is it expected to obtain. The response a question elicits is one that initiates a behavior or action; it focuses and directs attention and effort. It also implies a relationship between the one asking the question and the one providing an answer. The importance of questions lies in their contribution to creative and critical thinking. Questions operationalize curiosity into behavior and the foundation for learning. The value and usefulness of a question is that it helps to design the form that the information obtained will take, thus determining the direction of our actions. Of course, this can equally be represented as the limitations of a question. What is a good Inquiry question? Roy, Kustra and Borin (2003) offer some possibilities from responses provided by Inquiry educators at McMaster University. The one listed as most important, is a question to which one is most interested in receiving an answer to. Secondly, a question has to be open to research, i.e., obtaining an answer has to be achievable, even if it needs to be modified until it becomes researchable. To ensure you avoid violating the spirit of the inquiry, the answer to the question has to be unknown at the outset or may have multiple possible answers when initially asked. Questions that ask why tend to lead to explanations; questions that ask what tend to lead to descriptions or single answers. The question has to be focused, direct and specific, and possibly have clear sub-questions. The credibility of the information that can be used to research the question has to be reasonable. Avoid questions that come with a premise. Make sure all the terms in the question are defined. A good question should trigger new questions and more curiosity. Finally, questions should have answers with consequences, so there is some pressure to ensure it remains a genuine inquiry. Wells (n. d.) translated article provides a guideline that concretizes a six-step procedural recipe in the form of a problematization tool. It is a system of questions around a 3

principle question to analyze a question or topic. The tool is meant to acquaint the inquirer to significant and relevant ideas and facts, clarify the subject at hand, generate an idea for discussion or defense, and prepare one for revisions. (Pages 2-3). To maximize the rigor of the process and strengthen central argument, we are asked to respect the relationship between the ensemble of supporting and pertinent questions and the central question (Page 3). To achieve this objective, a two-step process is recommended to narrow the inquiry and identify the parameters of the main question (Page 3). (See Appendix A for the full Problematization procedure)

Inquiry Martinello and Cook (2000) offer an inquiry-oriented interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning that defines inquiry as having the following characteristics: 1) a process one goes through, 2) the source of new knowledge, 3) a product, and 4) an ability to be developled; all of which they claim are central to education and fundamentally add meaning to ones life. They provide an exposition of inquiry in terms of its origin, mode, content, context and product. They believe one can come to know inquiry by how it is done well and by recognizing the processes in ourselves and others. (Pp. 4-25) With some degree of congruency, the notion of excellence and artistry expands Martinello and Cooks view and coincides with Eisners argument (2003) that the primary mission of education is the preparation of artists beyond the fine arts to everything made well. Exploring the similarities and differences between disciplines, Martinello and Cook claim to display a multi-disciplinary approach in so far as showing an interest in how inquiry is done in any field. They offer a lengthy catalogue of responses from different disciplines, yet they do not heed to their own advice of recognizing the processes in ourselves. They list inquirying ways that include searches for anomalies, discrepancies and the unexplained, questions that are not raised, a different perspective, insights into personal and other real or imagined relationships and probing for gaps to discover the unknown which challenge or expand existing interpretations. (2000, pp. 4-7) In their discussion of modes and processes, they mention emotions, and feelings, including intra and interpersonal understanding and communication as being associated with affective thought. They identify keen interest and curiosity, competitiveness, cooperation, and the act of forming hunches as serving to frame, drive, direct, and color an inquiry. They conclude that the driving force of inquiry is a passion to explore and understand and an insatiable drive to learn. (2000, pp. 7-8) Contextual factors such as culture, gender, experience, personality and circumstances, are viewed as important, as is the environment in which the inquiry is conducted. (2000, p. 14) Just as new tools change the kinds of questions asked, so do contemporary ideas influence how one interprets the world of the past, the present and the future. Resources needed to explore questions can impoverish or empower the search. Social, political, and personal contexts can determine what questions can be asked, who may explore them, and when an inquiry can be done or be recognized. While inquiry can change what and how one understands, it can also be limited by what and how one knows. Every inquiry is unique and can break the bounds of tradition, but each is limited by the courage and the imagination of the inquirer. (2000, p. 15)

The process of inquiring helps us not only to develop content knowledge, but also to expand our skills in using the modes, processes, and methods of the search. (2000, p. 15) Ways of thinking to become better learners and inquirers, include the abilities to focus, to question, to simplify, to attend to details, to think fluently and flexibly, to form hunches, to experiment, to search for patterns, to use models and metaphors, and to find elegant solutions. It also involves the affective dispositions of taking risks, cooperating, collaborating, competing, and persevering or being capable of self-discipline. (2000, p. 16) Inquiry into interdisciplinary inquiry learning can only be as good as the questions it poses, offering a new angle on the topic, problem or spotlighting a brand new idea.The idea of questioning as problem definition can generate hypotheses that focus and frame the inquiry. Operational questions can assist in exploring the relationship between variables in the physical world. Descriptive questions can facilitate studying dynamic characteristics in social situations. Both lines of questions determine where to look for the answers. (2000, p. 16) The character of the query and the quality of the formulated question can determine the extent to which its answers contribute insights to a study and the success of the research. The ability to simplify questions and problems is a hallmark of the successful inquirer. (2000, p. 17) The authors propose the following process of inquiry: Questioning: Formulating questions that are clearly focused on what you want to find out and organizing them into sets of logically related issues. Searching for Resources: Finding many and various resources that are most germane to the questions selected for study. Consulting Resources: Probing different types of resources for the clues they hold to help better understand the questions and find answers to them. Organizing Findings: Collecting the clues uncovered in resources and organizing them in different ways to tease out the patterns they form. Interpreting Findings: Knowing how to read the patterns of meaning found in the organized data. Asking New Questions: Formulating new, more probing questions from the findings uncovered in response to earlier questions (2000, p. 25) Martinello and Cook believe that learning results from doing, just as habits of thinking are formed by actually thinking. The inquiry process they offer seems straight forward and on the surface, appears consistent with the view developed in this chapter. However, descriptions of what people do are not very useful unless they are accompanied by explicit descriptions of how they do it. It is getting to the how that lets us know how to package something to transfer such skills. The how to do something, the how to think of something as opposed to what to do is what enables one to reproduce competence and excellence. However, Martinello and Cooks catalogue does not seem to provide for the process of their own inquiries in gathering data of others inquiries. They mention novice inquirers will engage in effective learning by modeling expert inquirers, while realizing that as self-directed, life-long learners one always remain open to the necessary blindspots of inquiry. Yet, they neither mention nor explicitly display the process of their own inquiry, whether and to what extent they modeled the expert inquirers for their own research and what their necessary blindspots of inquiry are. 5

With an emphasis on the need to develop an awareness of ones own rational blindspots, one is reminded of Morins (1999) Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future. He argues for key principles of essential knowledge with which future education will flourish. These facets identify fundamental problems overlooked or neglected in our habits of thinking (Pp. 7-55): First Lesson: Knowing about knowledge, its processes and modalities, and the psychological and cultural dispositions, should be a primary requirement to prepare the mind to confront the constant threat of error and illusion. Second Lesson: Current fragmented, disjunctive and specialized learning should be replaced by learning that is contextual, complex and can grasp subjects in their totality. Third Lesson: The complex unity of human nature should be restored from its currently disintegrated condition to demonstrate the indissoluble connection between the unity and the diversity of all that is human. Fourth Lesson: Our planet requires polycentric thought that can aim at a universalism that is not abstract but conscious of the unity/diversity of the human condition. Fifth Lesson: We should bring about a wisdom of living together by adopting a multidimensional conscience that is anthropological, ecological, earthly civic and spiritual. Sixth Lesson: Education should include the study of uncertaintiesof reality, of knowledge and the ecology of actionby preparing our minds to expect the unexpected and confront it. It is an educational responsibility to embody a readiness to move toward the boundaries of uncertainty. Seventh Lesson: Intersubjective understanding of subject-to-subject knowledge includes a process of empathy, identification, and projection that demands an open heart, sympathy, generosity. Morins principles provide an all-encompassing philosophy that calls for disciplining the mind to study uncertainties, confront the constant threat of error and illusion, insist on grasping the object of learning in its totality, restore the complex unity of human nature, aim at universal thinking, and adopt a multidimensional conscience that embodies intersubjective understanding. In exploring the attempt to adopt this kind of philosophy and embodying it as a way of life, education must provide the opportunities to examine the pitfalls of our ways of knowing, relating and contextualizing that prevent us from moving toward the benefits that uncertainty and complexity have to offer. Comfort may not be the best strategy for learning, particularly if the only way one knows how to attain it is through certainty, rigidity and single-mindedness. However, learning how to manage different comfort levels to confront and cope with uncertainty, unpredictability and the multi-dimensionality of relationships could be more useful and gratifying. The challenge is in realizing one needs to use ones ways of knowing to influence ones ways of knowing. This challenge can be made more rewarding as one shifts into supportive and collaborative relationships and exemplifies the courage to embody the very values one strives to adopt and share in ones ways of knowing.

Epistemology Developing an awareness and tolerance for the limitatons of our ways of knowing can paradoxically free us from the reigns of our need for certainty and predictability. Yet, one becomes so invested in what one knows that our most significant limitations include our fears, derisions, avoidance and denial of the ambiguous, the uncertain and the complex. How do we enable ourselves to move toward the realm of the unknown and loosen the hold of what we know has on us? How do we approach the limits and boundaries of what we know and feel encouraged about what we dont know? How do we exercise a welcoming vigilance and embrace the unknown? Lets examine the domain of Epistemology for the insights it can offer and the ways it can assist in our own learning about the limits of our own ways of knowing. Gregory Bateson made original contributions across disciplines while maintaining that he was not much concerned with truth about thingsonly with truths about truths, with the natural history of descriptive propositions, information, injunctions, abstract premises and the aggregate networks of such ideas. (Bateson and Bateson, 1987, p. 157) Bateson showed that meaning is always contextual and that our personal epistemology is always implicated in how we relate. Bateson defines Epistemology as follows: a) a branch of philosophy concerned with how it is possible to know anything and what is truth; and b) as the study of natural history. He further divides the latter definition as, the study of how people think they know things, and the study of how people know things, indicating that the two are not necessarily the same thing. They both have to do with the word how and the business of knowing. Everybody has to have an epistemology or they wouldnt know anything and those that say they dont have an epistemology have a lousy one. (What is Epistemology? A lecture taped at Esalen Institute, California, 1979) Gregory Bateson was the first to formulate the application of the theory of logical levels as a mechanism in the behavioral (life) sciences. He derived it from the theory of logical types by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in their work on logic and mathematics. The organizing principle of hierarchies into logical levels refers to relationships between processes and phenomena. A system of activity is always a subsystem embedded in another system. The relationship between systems produces different levels of processes relative to the system from which one is operating. Natural hierarchies and levels of processes are evident in nature, our brain structure and function, language and social systems. This understanding has had profound significance in such fields as cybernetics, systems theory, family therapy, ecological thinking and biosemiotics. Of particular interest is the application of the theory of logical levels to the processes of learning, change and inquiry. It is such shift between levels of abstraction that allows ones inquiry to turn on itself and examine the epistemological grounds one own intelligibility! Bateson asked not about the meaning of the encoded message, but rather about the meaning of the code chosen. (Bateson, Style, Grace, and Information in Primitive Art, 1972, p. 130) His interest, as is ours here, is with the how of inquiry, with how inquiry is done during the process of inquiring. One key point in Batesons statement is that meaning is a function of the code or way of knowing; but how multiple ways of knowing are chosen is far more interesting and useful. He offered a partial answer in 7

Mind and Nature (1979): Knowledge at any given moment will be a function of the thresholds of our available means of perception. (p. 32) What I am suggesting here, is that by giving due diligence to our ways of knowing, one can increase ones sensitivity for inquiry by lowering ones epistemological thresholds and thereby increasing our available means of perception (Bateson, 1972). In terms of what we know and think we know, and what can be known, fundamental epistemological distinctions can be characterized according to what we can know about the relationship between the world and our mind. Materialism reflects the position that there is a real world that exists independently of the mind. From this perspective, the mind is analogous to a camera that takes pictures of reality. (Dilts, 1998, p. 19) Keeney (1985) describes this epistemological position as nave realism; the view that there is a direct correspondence between an event occurring outside and our inner experience of it. (P. 2) Idealism, (rationalism) as defined by Dilts (1998), is the position where, perceived events and relations have no reality other than their existence in human thought. (P. 19) The mind is analogous to a projector that creates reality. Keeney (1985) views this position as nave solipsism, where the world as each one of us knows it is entirely constructed by ourselves. He goes on to claim that both nave realism and nave solipsism are equally limited views, and that a more comprehensive view is to see each perspective as only partial glimpses of the whole picture. (P. 3) To consider how to converge these different perspectives, Ernst Von Glasersfeld (1984) and others suggest playing an active part in the reconstruction of ones world of experience. Several schools of thought and isms reflect this view. Structuralism, as characterized by Dilts (1998), is the position that reality is a set of structural transforms of primary data taken from the world, where the mind is viewed as being analogous to an editor that interacts with and selects primary data (P. 20). Keeney makes the observation that Bateson considered Cybernetics to be the appropriate epistemological foundation and language for talking about personal and social change. He defines Cybernetics as a general science of pattern and organization and to adopt such a view is to enter a completely different world of description. Practical action always embodies formal ideas. (1983, p. 6) He states that he uses the term epistemology to indicate the basic premises underlying action and cognition. (1983, p. 7) Initially formulated by Alfred Korzybski (Science and Sanity,1933), the notion that the map is not the territory remains a significant organizing principle of Cybernetic Epistemology, Radical Constructivism and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP); ways of knowing that are consistent, reflective and considered useful to advancing fruitful creative inquiries. Keeney advanced the insight that, following Bateson, the difference that makes the greatest difference is to realize that all maps are not just different from the territory, but are within the territory. Using the reflexive orientation, McHugh et. al. (1974) describe the epistemological distinctions as follows: The social scientists interest in ideas is an interest in the application of thought to things. Social scientists are interested in how things control thought (empiricism), how thoughts are themselves accomplished as things (rationalism); reflexive social science is interested in how thinking is constituted as a productas a kind of thing which can be oriented to in standard, univocal ways

(philosophy of science), or in how thinking is caused by things like society, groups, classes, and world views (so called radicalism). (P. 17) We need to acknowledge that the name we give something, the label we use and the frame we adopt can very effectively lock us into a particular way of thinking. Under the heading of The Achilles heel of knowledge Morin (1991) includes intellectual errors, errors of reason and blinding paradigms. Kuhn (1970) and others point out that firmly held beliefs can severely limit inquiry, fooling us into thinking that we know all that needs to be known to understand the topic under study. Essentially, every model, every belief, by its existence enables and limits inquiry. The accepted knowledge of a field both informs and biases our perspectives, as we look at our inquiries through that lens. (Marinello and Cook, 2000, p. 10). Keeney echoes this sentiment by stating that any position, perspective, conceptual frame of reference, or idea is a partial embodiment of a whole we can never completely grasp. The truth may snare us at times, but we can never snare truth. (1983, p. 3) Introducing Radical Constructivism as a way of thinking and knowing, Von Glasersfeld states that manand man aloneis responsible for his thinking, his knowledge, and therefore also for what he does. (1984, p. 18) Paul Watzlawick was also creative inquirer that championed the constructivist perspective. He was a significant contributor to the development of a thought model in the 1950s at Californias Mental Research institute. He shared the responsibility for shifting and replacing the classical concept of linear causality in psychotherapy to a systemic, circular point of view. At that time, the Palo Alto groups attention turned their interests toward the effects of human communication and interaction. (Munchausen's Pigtail, 1990, p. 7-8.) As the subtitle to his 1984 book, The Invented Reality, Watzlawick asks the seemingly simple question, How Do We know What We Believe We Know? He explains that the efforts of our exploration and understanding of the real world, of the way things really are, results in what we know. Stepping outside of itself (as a reflexive move in moving up a levels of abstraction) , the mind can observe itself at work, and at this point, we are no longer dealing with objective facts, but with mental processes which are not so self-evident. This makes how we know far more problematic. Consequently, if what we know depends on how we come to know it, then our view of reality is no longer a true image of what is the case outside ourselves, but is inevitably determined also by the processes through which we arrive at this view. (p. 9) As a third domain of thought, we believe reality is an invention whose inventor is unaware of his act of invention, who considers it as something that exists independently of him; the invention then becomes the basis of his world view and actions. (p. 10) Awareness of the role that our beliefs about what we know and what is real, is inextricably intertwined with how we believeand this is one of the ways that our own epistemology recourses upon itself. The notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy is instructive here. Watzlawick (1984) defines the phenomenon as an assumption or prediction that, purely as a result of having been made, causes the expected or predicted event to occur and thus confirms its own accuracy. (P. 95) He offers the following illustration: a typical scenario is where someone assumes they are not respected, for whatever reason. Guided by and acting on this assumption, the person behaves in a hostile, overly sensitive and suspicious manner that brings about the very contempt in others which proves his firmly entrenched 9

conviction. In human relationships, the self-fulfilling prophecy embodies basic dynamics such as the harder we try, the more we fail, so we dont bother to try and ensure failure; the more we want something, the less we get it, so our attempts become so overpowering that it shuts off the opportunity; and the faster we want to arrive, the slower we get there, so we speed up and our recklessly slows down the entire process. That the invented reality we create will become actual reality only if the invention is believed, speaks directly to Watzlawicks third domain of thought, i.e., with how we believe. That prophesies get fulfilled may be more a matter of the meaning we attach to the circumstances, but which prophecies get fulfilled may be more a question of how much flexibility is available in ones epistemology to perceive choice. According to Bateson (1972), the fulfillment of prophesies is based on the epistemological error that underlies our definitions. Although Watzlawick (1990) was referring to the context of mental health, his warning can be generalized to inquiry and used as a cautionary measure: Is it possible that inquiry is a name we give to something which, having been given that name creates a reality of its own?

Neuro-Linguistic Programming There are many knowledge systems and frameworks that consider the role of beliefs, among other components, in how we experience, inquire and experience our inquiry about reality. The one that shares many commonalities among those mentioned above is the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming NLP. John Grinder and Richard Bandler were the original developers of Neuro- Linguistic Programming in the early 1970s. Their first publications, The Structure of Magic Volume 1: A Book About Language And Change (1975) and The Structure of Magic Volume 2: A Book About Communication And Change (1976), were groundbreaking because they developed a model of linguistic modeling, a Meta-Model. The ideas of Gregory Bateson and the therapeutic applications of Milton H. Erickson were most influential, as well as the creativity, wisdom and effectiveness of other masterful therapists. Neuro refers to the mental strategies a person uses, Linguistic refers to the language patterns and nonverbal responses, and Programming refers to the resulting procedures that can be used to transfer the skill to other people. (Dilts, p. xvi) The Meta-Model Korzibskis the map is not the territory remains a cornerstone of the field. Grinder and Bandlers starting point was with the contention that there is an irreducible difference between the world and our experience of it. They pointed out that with this necessary difference between the world and any particular model or representation of the world, the models or maps of the world that each of us creates will themselves be different. (1975, pp. 7-8). The value of their original synthesis was in explicitly articulating a linguistic model about how models of the world are represented. In The Structure of Magic 1(1975) they explain the process as follows: When humans wish to communicate their representation, their experience of the world, they form a complete linguistic representation of their experience; this is called the Deep Structure. As they begin to speak, they make a series of choices (transformations) about the form in which they will communicate their experience. These choices are not, in general, conscious choices. 10

Our behavior in making these choices is, however, regular and rule governed. The process of making this series of choices (a derivation) results in a Surface Structure - a sentence or sequence of words which we recognize as a wellformed group of words in our language. This Surface Structure itself can be viewed as a representation of the full linguistic representation - the Deep Structure. The transformations change the structure of the Deep Structure either deleting or changing the word order - but do not change the semantic meaning. The model of this process is a model of what we do when we represent and communicate our model - a model of a model - a Meta-model. This Meta-model represents our intuitions about our experience. (Pp. 35-36) Synonymy in the Meta-model means that the same Deep Structure is connected with more than one Surface Structure. Ambiguity is the opposite case. Ambiguity is the intuition that native speakers use when the same Surface Structure has more than one distinct semantic meaning. Ambiguity in the Meta-model is the case wherein more than one Deep Structure is connected by transformations with the same Surface Structure. The intuition of well-formedness is represented in the Meta-model in that any sequence of words is well formed just in case there is a series of transformations (a derivation) which carries some Deep Structure into that sequence of words - a Surface Structure. Thus, the Meta-model is an explicit representation of our unconscious, rule-governed behavior. (PP. 36-37) Through a series of neurological, social and personal constraints, our experience and perceptionas active processessystematically use three general modeling mechanisms: Generalization, Deletion and Distortion. Generalization is the process by which elements or pieces of a person's model become detached from their original experience and come to represent the entire category of which the experience is an example. (1975, p. 14), Deletion is a process by which we selectively pay attention to certain dimensions of our experience and exclude others. (1975, p. 15) Distortion is the process which allows us to make shifts in our experience of sensory data. (1975, p. 16) Robert Dilts, a student himself at the time, published an authoritative book in 1980, called Neuro Linguistic Programming Volume 1: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. It was co-authored with the developers, John Grinder and Richard Bandler, and two members of the original group of students, Leslie CameronBandler and Judith DeLozier. In the preface of the book, they described NLP as the study of the structure of subjectivity with its own methodologies and its own purpose. In the Preface, the authors added that NLP has the status of a model, whose usefulness not truthfulness is to be the measure of its worth. (P. ii)

11

Classic Code/New Code DeLozier (1995) recounts that unfolding out of the first NLP description, referred to as Old Code or Classic Code they generated language patterns connected to the deep structure of experience and cognitive technologies. Realizing that wisdom is not in the technology, but in the carrier of technology, she and John Grinder developed a second description of NLP referred to as New Code. A series of seven elements were developed from different roots that included information theory from Batesons work, the Yaqui way of knowledge from Carlos Castanedas books, and their personal African experience in the Congo with drumming, dancing, singing and story-telling. These elements are briefly described below as ways to assist in approaching inquiry. The first description they developed was of a State. This came out asking the following questions: What is the state that you would develop to model excellence in the world? What are the pieces that go into developing a quality state for modeling, and what are the things we can do to have a choice about our state, and to manage our state on the problem side, as well as the evolutionary and generative side for ourselves? They examined the state of not knowing, where you are gathering information and have intuitions about it but you don't know what it is that you know. This connected with Batesons idea that there are two ways of knowing; knowing as awareness and knowing as capability, and understanding the relationship between the two. In modeling mastery and excellence, certain patters begin to emerge that facilitate the pursuit of states conducive to learning, inquiry and modeling. Another element is the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious. To get a better sense of this relationship, we need to consider the kind of mechanisms that we have to continuously develop that relationship and what we do that requires the whole unit of mind to act in a fully committed and honest way. How many people do something that requires that the whole unit of mind act with 100% commitment? As Bateson recognized, Milton Erickson was once such individual who had a highly developed quality relationship between their conscious and unconscious resources, knowing when to use the tight thinking of the cognitive conscious mind, and when to use the loose thinking of the more creative unconscious mind. A closely related element is the balance between practice and spontaneity. This is the point when practice reaches so deep in your behavior that you let it all go and act with complete spontaneity. Aikido, Jazz and other types of behavioral improvisations are enactments of this balance. This is of particular relevance to creative inquiry in developing tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty and generating creative responses. Perceptual positions is another component that involves developing the ability to shift from your own position to someone elses. Then there is a third position that is neutral; a purely informational perspective where you can see the dance. Characterological adjectives is where you begin to see your part in the dance. DeLozier offers the following explanation: This is what systems are about: getting a big enough piece of the interaction so that you can step back and say, Oh, now I understand how I'm dancing with this person and realize what choices you have of getting out of the dance. From this position you can ask, What, when I step back in there with this information, can make a difference to the quality of that interaction? Knowing that if one part of the system begins to move, the whole system is going to move. In the context of creativity, 12

asking questions such as What are the differences between being a perceiver of this art and being the creator?, Do I have different beliefs when I'm there compared to when I'm here? and Do I have different beliefs about my ability to be creative?, allows one to develop the ability to take on anothers perceptual position. In the book The Phantom Tollbooth (Juster, 1961), there is a race of people who, when they are born, they float to the height they are going to be when they are fully grown. They then grow down to the ground. The explanation offered for this phenomenon is so that they never have to change their perspective. This illustrates the inflexibility or refusal that some people exercise to maintain their own perceptual position. A fifth element involves Attention. Have you ever considered how you use your attention, where you put your attention and how you get it back? As soon as you focus your attention on a particular place, large portions of the world are (re)moved somewhere else. This connects to the general modeling mechanism of Deletion. Consider what happens when interacting with someone and you shift your attention that informs you in a different way, allowing you access to other aspects of the person that influence you experiencing them in a different way. Developing the ability to attend to what you are attending out of choice rather than by default can drive your attention in more creative ways. Filters is the sixth component. Filtering the world in a certain way will determine what kind of world you get. Phrases such as if the only tool you have is a hammer, youll tend to see the whole world as a nail and if you always do what you've always done, you will continue to get what you have always gotten are illustrative of the limitations that filters place on how we perceive world. Designed to filter information, we need to consider what mechanisms and processes we have and can develop to move our attention around. This would enable one to create the opportunity to ask, What else is out there? The rules that we internalize as a result of such filtering have natural consequences in how we interact with the world out there. You can't know what you can't know, but knowing that, you can begin to build a belief that operates at another level. If I know that I don't know, then what kind of things can I do to move my filters so that I can discover the edges of my map? As a creative inquirer, it is worth asking What sorts of arrangements can I make in my life to move myself to the edge so the surrounding unknown becomes available? The last element is Multiple Descriptions. What mechanisms do we have for generating multiple descriptions of the world? Consider the use of the modeling state, focus of attention, filters and triple description to gather information from the larger unit of mind. This is systemic thinking and a way of setting up your intent on discovering new information by deepening the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious. Yet, as soon as we code something, we cut through the systemic circuit. We need to ask, At what level do we have to go to in our thinking to maintain the systemic nature of it? The difference between people who respond effectively from those who dont is largely a function of their internal models and descriptions of the world. Those who respond creatively and effectively have a rich representation of the situation, perceiving a wide range of options in choosing their actions. It is not external reality that limits, constrains or empowers us, but our maps of that reality. Questions considered key from this view

13

include What limits our models of the world? and How and why do we continue to confuse our maps with the territory? (Dilts, R., & DeLozier, 1997) In 2001, Bostic St. Clair and Grinder published Whispering in the Wind, both a personal statement and the latest definitive book on NLP that outlines the distinction of NLP as modeling and as application. Soon after the book, Grinder (2001) further articulated the coding requirement that inspired the design of the NLP New Code: At some point in the anchoring format and completely consistent with the ethics of NLP application (which requires that the NLP practitioner confine his or her manipulations to the process level and leave the content entirely to the client), the NLP practitioner will ask the client to decide what the desired state (goal, objective) for the change work will be. Notice that this is a call for the client to make a conscious decision. At some point further on in the format and equally consistent with the ethics of NLP application, the practitioner will ask the client to decide what behavior or state or resource he or she would like to implement to replace the undesirable behavior. Once again, this decision is one made consciously by the client. These are important decisions and it is unfortunate in the extreme that the classic code assigns the responsibility for these decisions to the clients conscious mind precisely the part of the client least competent to make such decisions. (P. 214) Grinder explains further: More telling is the complete absence of any explicit involvement of the unconscious mind in any portion of the format. Given the efficacy and ecological quality of the patterns made explicit by Grinder and Bandler in their modeling of Dr. Milton H. Erickson, this is somewhat startling. Now allow us to reassure the reader that the absence of any explicit involvement of the unconscious mind is not to be confused with the absence of actual involvement of the unconscious mind. The absence of any explicit involvement is an issue of adequate coding while it is difficult to imagine any significant change occurring without the actual active involvement of the unconscious mind. . . The flaw then is in the coding rather than in the behavior. In particular we can identify the failure to capture and make explicit a crucial aspect of the interaction between client and agent of change. However, given that NLP is the modeling technology par excellence for complex human behavior, one would expect that such a crucial assignment of responsibility would be explicitly directed to the resources in the client that are most capable of performing them in this case, the unconscious mind as opposed to the conscious mind. Further the agent of changes relationship with the clients unconscious as well as the relationship between the conscious and unconscious processes in the client surely deserves explicit representation. (The Sins of the Fathers, 2002) The flaw then is in the coding rather than in the behavior echoes Bateson words years before where his interest was with the meaning of the code chosen. The intelligibility 14

generated based on the choice made, is the realm where inquiry turns on itself to examine how the inquirers own choice of code is reflexively used to examine the process. Elements that play a significant role in the choice made include beliefs, presuppositions, and meaning. Beliefs are a key component of our deep structure that shape and create the surface structure of our thoughts and actions. They determine how events are given meaning, are at the core of motivation and culture, and along with values, provide the reinforcement that supports or inhibits particular capabilities and behaviours. They are judgements and evaluations about ourselves, others and the world around us. Beliefs are mostly unconscious generalization about causation, meaning, and boundaries in the world, our behaviour, capabilities and our identity. (Dilts and DeLozier, 2000, p. 97) The purpose of beliefs and belief systems is to link core values to other parts of our experience and maps of the world. Dimensions of our experience that are influenced by our beliefs and are involved in forming and sustaining our beliefs include our sensory experience, values, expectations and our internal states. (Dilts and DeLozier, 2000, p. 99) Assumptions and Presuppositions As defined by Dilts and DeLoziers (2000), assumptions are typically unconscious or unstated beliefs behind an action or another belief that gives them meaning . . . and relate to additional inferences that we make in reference to a statement which are not required (emphasis mine) of the statement itself to make sense. (p. 58) Linguistic presuppositions relate to unconscious beliefs or assumptions embedded in the structure of an utterance, action or another belief and are required (emphasis mine) for the utterance, action or belief to make sense. (P. 997). It is the complementary relationship between assumptions and presuppositions and often gets taken for granted that are considered for examination below. Dilts and DeLoziers (2000), make a further distinction and explain that epistemological presuppositions are deep, and often unstated, beliefs that form the foundation of a particular system of knowledge and cannot be proven, but are the ones used by all the other concepts and ideas within that epistemology to prove them. (p. 998). Synthesized from the fields of General Semantics (Alfred Korzybski), Transformational Grammar (Noam Chomsky), Systems Theory (Gregory Bateson), Cybernetics (W. Ross Ashby), Pragmatism (William James), Phenomenology (Edmund Husserl), and Logical Positivism (Bertrand Russell), the authors highlight four epistemological presuppositions (for a summary of all the key NLP presuppositions, please refer to Appendix B): 1. Map is Not the Territory. As human beings, we can never know reality. We can only know our perceptions of reality. It is our 'neuro-linguistic' maps of reality that determine how we behave and that give those behaviors meaning, not reality itself. It is generally not reality that limits us or empowers us, but rather our map of reality. 2. Life and 'Mind' are Systemic Processes. The processes that take place within a human being and between human beings and their environment are systemic. Our bodies, our societies, and our universe form an ecology of complex systems and sub-systems all of which interact with and mutually influence each other. It is not possible to completely isolate any part of the system from the rest of the system. 3. At some level, all behavior is "positively intended". People make the best choices available to them given the possibilities and capabilities that they perceive to be 15

accessible within their model of the world. Any behavior no matter how evil, crazy or bizarre it seems is the best choice available to that person at that point in time. 4. The Law of Requisite Variety. In order to successfully adapt and survive, a member of a system needs a certain minimum amount of flexibility. That amount of flexibility has to be proportional to the variety in the rest of the system. (P. 999) We are asked to consider the above presuppositions by aligning ourselves with each one and become fully congruent with them. This can be accomplished by 1) finding reference experiences in your life where you acted fully congruent from each of these presuppositions, and 2) fully associating with the state connected with the experience and noticing the posture and physiology of your body and where your attention is focused. Notice what perception of reality arises from each state. Once you cycle through each, consider the opposite of each of these presuppositions: There is one single correct map which is the territory. We are not part of the same system. You are separate from the system you are in. Reality occurs linearly and mechanically. You can't trust anyone because people are basically negatively intended, or act randomly with no intention at all. There is only one right way to do things. If something works once, it will always work. You don't have the capabilities you need. Lastly, we are asked to act 'as if' the above two sets of presuppositions were true; then consider what epistemological presuppositions could be at the basis of each belief: a. You can't control the system but it is predictable and you can prepare yourself for what is going to happen. b. You can get what you want in this system but you must do the right thing. c. You can't get what you want in this system no matter what you do. d. Everyone in this system is out for themselves so you must protect your own interests. e. If you don't get what you want right away it will be too late. (P. 1000) Meaning Meaning is a function of the relationship between the map and the territory and the natural consequence of interpreting our experiences. The meaning that we make and how we make it is connected with the richness and flexibility of our internal representations of the world of which we are part. NLP emphasizes the importance of exploring different perspectives and levels of experience in order to create the possibility of discovering different potential meanings with respect to a situation or experience (Dilts, 1999, p. 78) This means that altering the internal representations of our experience, can alter the meaning of the experience. The context in which an experience occurs can also influence the meaning we attach to the experience, so that the same communication or behavior will mean something different in different contexts. Perception of context or contextual cues is an important aspect of the ability to make meaning of a message or an event. The mental frames we place on our perception of a situation serve as a type of internally generated context for our experience.

16

Assumptions about the intent behind the behavior or communication also create a type of frame that influences the way in which they are interpreted. The channel through which a message is received or perceived also influences meaning. It is also largely determined by the markers of the message that tell you how to interpret the message in order to give it appropriate meaning. The meaning of the communication is the response it elicits in the receiver, regardless of the intention of the communicator. Additionally, meaning is the product of our values and beliefs. The messages that are most meaningful are the ones that are most connected o tour core values.

The Role of Emotions Our emotional states and responses play a significant role in how we experience ourselves, others and the world around us. From this perspective, experience is not just what happens to you, but how you respond to what happens to you. Considering that passion for exploration and understanding and an insatiable drive to learn drives inquiry, it is useful to take a closer look at the role that emotions play. According Cameron-Bandler and Lebeaus (1986) findings, an emotion is defined as your global subjective experience (or feeling response) at any given moment (P. 5). Their research reveals important information about how best to respond to the needs that emotions signal. Due to their informational and signal value, the worth of an emotion is measured by the outcome it is intended to serve, and not by how pleasant it is to experience it. (P. 35) Determined by the particular mix of perceptions and thought processes we are engaging in at a particular moment, emotions have an underlying structure. Knowing the structure of emotions leads to appropriateness of response, making it possible to change your emotions and make all emotional states available to you. (Cameron-Bandler and Lebeau, 1986, 52-53) Understanding that structure plays a significant role in ones ability to respond out of choice rather than by default, means that knowing the components of emotional states to which you presently do not have access will make it possible for you to create those emotions for yourself when you need and want them. (P. 54) Emotions are a function of and the manifestation of a set of ingredients: Time Frame, Modality, Involvement, Intensity, Comparison, Tempo, Criteria (Standards) and Chunk Size. (Cameron-Bandler and Lebeau, 1986, pp. 56-79) They are briefly described below: Almost all emotions involve our referring to the past, present and the future. Reference to a certain time frame is necessary in order for many emotions to exist at all and may be significant in determining the qualities and impact of that emotion. If you are experiencing an emotion for which time frame is an important component, then you can shift that emotion to another simply by shifting your attention of your temporal orientation to a different time frame. Our beliefs about how necessary, how possible (or impossible) and how important things are can greatly affect our emotions and vice versa. When your subjective experience dictates that some particular thing is necessary, or possible (or impossible), or desirable, you are operating out of a modality. Some emotions are shaped by modalities to a greater extent than others. For example, responsibility depends largely upon modalities for its qualities and effects. Believing that it needs to be done is 17

expressing a modality of necessity. It is mine to do is also based on a modality of necessity, conveying the necessity that you do it. Once you accept that the task needs to be done and it is yours to do, you no longer question whether you can do it and you shift to considering how you can do it. Feeling responsible presupposes I must and ones thinking rallies to fulfill that presupposition. People who feel responsible based on these three qualities are usually determined and in control of fulfilling their responsibilities. Modalities, particularly with feeling responsible, are critical to the creative inquirer in sustaining the process and quality of his inquiring experience and achieving their objective. Just as you can feel something is possible, necessary and desirable, you can also feel involved. The outcome you create is whatever change in emotion, behavior or circumstance you want for yourself. The range of involvement can be from feeling instrumentally involved in shaping what occursactively engaged or to feeling impotently subject to what occurspassively disengaged. Feeling active engages in you a sense of purposeful involvement and personal ability to influence what is going on. This is experienced as a pervading sense of needing to do something to fulfill some purpose. For example, feeling determined to get something done, feeling ambitious to rise to a certain level, feeling curious to figure something out and feeling frustrated to make something turn out the way you want it. The degree of involvement you feel and whether you are going toward or away from something combine to help create certain emotions. Actively involved toward something is felt as frustration, determination, ambition, affection or friendly and intrigued. Passively involved away from an outcome is felt as boredom, annoyance, loneliness or self-pity. Passively involved toward an outcome is felt as hope and patience. One can appreciate the usefulness of feeling actively engaged toward the fulfillment of what is possible and worthwhile as a creative inquirer. Intensity is a subjective and relative characteristic that covers a continuum quality of emotionsthe sub-characteristics of sensory representations that intensify or deintensify an emotion. It is often possible to move from one emotion to another simply by changing the intensity of the experience you are having at the time. For example, the continuum from feeling curious, interested, aroused, lustful to obsessed, consists of a set of emotions that are structurally similar but vary in their relative intensity. As an inquirer, it is critical to be aware that when it comes to intensity, more does not necessary translate into better. When we attend to the degree to which things are the same or different you are making comparisons. Possible types of comparisons that one makes are between our present state and past or future states. Derived feelings frequently arise as a result of a comparison of ones present state to some internally represented desired state. As a comparison, they often function as the decision point in a particular thinking sequence. We create the feeling of inadequacy by making comparisons between ourselves and others. What is important to consider here, is that even though you may be actively engaged in inquiring an area closely related other brilliant individuals who might have a status equal to an intellectual celebrity, comparing ourselves with them may generate a sense of inadequacy. This comparison may inadvertently support the belief that not being able to do what someone else can do, means that you are not worth as much as the other person. Comparing yourself to others and coming up lacking, you take that lack as proof that you have distasteful or do not have good enough qualities. 18

Making comparisons between your abilities and accomplishments and those of other people can form the basis for feeling inadequate. Ones sense of adequacy depends on who you are comparing yourself to (believing it is a fair comparison) and the extent and method of the comparison (believing it is an appropriate comparison). One way to move to a greater feeling of adequacy is to pay attention to what one is comparing. That is, to pay attention to the ways in which one is better now than in the past, ask the question, How have I improved? We often pay attention to the degree to which things match or do not match one another. When we are attending only to how things match, what you tend to notice most are those things that seem to be the same as something you are holding as a standard. Matching is an important component in creating the emotions of agreeable and satisfied. These emotions indicate that you are noticing the ways in which what you want has to be or is being fulfilled. Mismatching is an important element in the emotions of disagreement, contemptuousness and disappointment. With these feelings, you will notice that you are attending to what you have gotten or have done that does not match what you had wanted or intended. Mismatching can also underlie feeling humorous, where what you find amusing are the unexpected or bizarre discrepancies. Are you comparing on the basis of sameness or commonality (matching) or difference or discrepancy (mismatching)? Both mismatching and comparisons can provide you with an awareness of differenceeither absolute, in the case of matching, or relative, in the case of comparisons. It is this recognition of difference that is so important to creating certain emotions for both mismatching and comparisons. Tempo is one of those rarely recognized qualities that is almost always a compelling aspect of all our experiences. It is the pace of our experiencequick, slow, steady, erratic. Changing your tempo can dramatically change your emotions. That emotions rely upon certain tempo patterns, means that they are significant in determining the subjective quality of the emotions. Breathing patterns and their alteration have the immediate effect of changing ones tempo which leads to a change in how one feels. Emotions always occur within a particular context, and when you change a significant component your emotional experience also changes. When situations change, what is important to you changes too. The things that are important to you, the criteria, are the standards that you apply in a certain situation. If you change the criteria you are using, while leaving all the other components intact, your emotional response will change as well. Like the other components, criteria interact simultaneously with all other components to create emotions at any given moment that provide ways of dramatically influencing the quality of your experience. For an evaluation to be made, there must be available some representation of what constitutes a satisfactory or unsatisfactory result. Since criteria are the standards by which we evaluate our experiences and the world around us, it is necessary to know the criteria being used in a test of the past, present, or future in order to make sense of the results of that test. Whether or not a specific criterion is satisfied, the outcome of a persons evaluations may depend upon the results of other evaluations of other criteria. Knowledge of the criteria that an individual uses to evaluate will enable you to make sense of their decision, as well as predict future responses accurately. It is of tremendous value to know on what basis things are being attended to, sought after, valued or avoided. Criteria tell us on what qualitative basis an evaluation is being made, and the time frame tells us when that person is concerned 19

about those criteria being satisfied. (Cameron-Bandler, Gordon, Lebeau, The EMPRINT Method, 1985, pp. 80-82) Chunk size is a description of how much you are attending to in your experience out of what is possible to attend to in a particular situation. Chunking down leads you to attend to smaller and smaller details, while chunking up leads you to attend to the whole, to a broader, more inclusive picture. Chunk size is one of the ways in which you can change your emotions. Viewing a task at a vast chunk size that includes outcomes you think is beyond your abilities will likely lead you to feel incapable. Chunking down formidable tasks into various steps and skills needed to attain the outcome will shift your emotion to feeling capable. The process of moving from feeling incapable to feeling capable begins when you start chunking down into smaller pieces of behavior, perception and skills or abilities that you consider within your grasp, organizing your approach one step at a time. The idea is to chunk up or down your experience to a level at which you satisfy your criteria. The appropriateness of a particular chunk size depends largely upon the person using it, the situation the person is in, and the emotion that is needed or wanted. Relatively few emotions are necessarily based upon one particular chunk size. Although most emotions are qualitatively affected by the chunk size you are using at the time, it is important to consider the following questions: What is a useful chunk size? What is the appropriate amount of detail for you in this situation? What if we consider inquiry as a process of negotiation of personal epistemologies between inquirers? Lebeau (Negotiation: Winning More Than Money, A workshop, 1984) offers a variation in the emotional components and frames the approach in terms of a negotiation. From this frame of reference, inquiry involves a set of four variables that interact to create the perception of negotiability in any person at any given moment. The concept is that there is nothing inherent in any object of inquiry that creates value for it; it is only your perception of what the object of inquiry is worth that is going to affect how you negotiate your away around the inquiry. The model of negotiation is based on the concept that there are variables at work that you can know about, that you can detect, that you can elicit and that you can impact. The goal is to create the response of negotiability in yourself and the other individual(s) to the degree required to achieve a collaborative, win-win outcome. The four variables are: 1) the standards and values that are important to satisfy or live up to; 2) the amount or the length of time within which a transaction needs to be accomplished in order to avoid problems or serious negative consequences; 3) the degree of emotional intensity (the compelling force) that you experience in a given situation, that is associated with the outcome of the negotiation, ranging on a scale of increasing intensity from I dont care/it doesnt matter to want to need to must/have to; and 4) the number of individuals or entities that are ready, willing and able to satisfy your needs. So what do we need to consider to experience our inquiry as a collaborative, passionate explorations and the drive to learn as insatiable? One useful recommendation is to consider feeling responsible, actively engaged toward the fulfillment of personal values and needs, where results are considered satisfactory in comparison to previous achievements at a level of detail appropriate to your specific situation. Creatively negotiating the inquiry process to satisfy the parties involved requires much flexibility in ones epistemology, enough to be reflexive and turn the inquiry into a self-inquiry. 20

There is much variation to consider still, and awareness based on emotional choice will no doubt contribute significantly to the quality of the creative inquiry we pursue.

The Role of the Inquirer Based on Batesons levels of learning and change, Dilts developed the NeuroLogical Levels model (2003) which proposes that the life of people in any system, and indeed, the life of the system itself, can be described and understood on a number of different levels. (P. xix) The focus of coaching is on what a person is doing and needs to do in order to perform effectively; the focus of NLP and the NLP modeling process is on how to perform optimally. Coaching and modeling are essential and complementary processes forming a double learning loop between what needs to be done and how to do it. (P. xiii-xviii) The emphasis is on both task and relationship. For our purposes here, Dilts model provides useful descriptions that can be incorporated into the role of the inquirer and the educational institution as the environment supporting the inquirer and his inquiries. The basic idea is that there is a hierarchy of levels of learning and change in our lives, with each level transcending but including processes and relationships of the level beneath it. The levels of this hierarchy include our environment, behavior, capabilities, beliefs, values, identity and purpose with respect to the larger system of which we are a part. The premise of the model is that each level in the hierarchy has a different structure and function in our lives. Different types of support are needed to effectively produce or manage change at the various levels. Each level is briefly described below: The guiding and caretaking role provides support with respect to the environment in which change takes place. By guiding, you are directing a person or a group along the path leading from some present state to a desired state. This presupposes the guide has already reached the destination and knows the best way to get there. The caretaker or custodian provides a safe and supportive environment, attending to the external context and making sure that what is needed is available and that no external distractions and interferences. The environment in which a system and its members interactwhen and where success occursthe operations and relationships within the system and organization take place, determining the context and constraints under which people operate. (Dilts, 2003, pp. 1-32) The coaching role is focused at the behavioral level helping a person improve a particular behavioral performance. Methods used are derived from a sports training model that promotes conscious competence involving the drawing out and strengthening peoples abilities through careful observation and feedback and facilitating them to act in coordination with other team members. Improvement is based on performance in specific contexts and situations. The specific behaviors and actions of a group of individuals taken to reach successwhat the organization does within the environment, in terms of particular patterns of work, interaction and communication of work patterns, where behaviors are defined organizationally as general procedures and individually as specific work routines, working habits or job related activities. (Dilts, 2003, pp. 33-66)

21

The teaching role assists a person develop cognitive skills and capabilities, and increase competencies and thinking skills relevant to an area of learning. The emphasis is more on new learning than on refining ones previous performance. Individual capabilities include cognitive strategies, and skills such as learning, memory, decision making and creativity which assist the performance of a particular behavior or task; organizational capabilities relate to the infrastructures available to support communication, innovation, planning and decision making between members of the organization. (Dilts, 2003, pp. 69-126) The mentoring role involves guiding someone to discover the persons own unconscious competencies and overcome internal resistances and interference through believing in the person and validating their own positive intentions. It involves shaping or influencing a persons beliefs and values in a positive way by resonating with, releasing and unveiling the persons inner wisdom through the mentors own example. The objective is to internalize the process and carry their own inner mentor. Beliefs and values provide the motivation and guidelines behind the strategies and capabilities used to accomplish behavioral outcomes in the environmentwhy people do things the way they do them in a particular time and place. Beliefs and values determine how events are given meaning and are at the core of judgment and culture. (Dilts, 2003, pp. 127-178) The sponsoring role involves seeking and safeguarding the potential within others, focusing on the development of identity and core values. Effective sponsorship results from the commitment to the promotion of something that is already within the person or group but not presently manifested to its full capacity. A good sponsor creates a context in which others can act, grow and excel; providing the conditions, contacts and resources that allow the group or individual being sponsored to focus on, develop and use their own abilities and skills. Values and beliefs support the individuals or organizations sense of identitythe who behind the why, how, what where and when. Processes at this level involve peoples sense of role and mission with respect to their vision and the larger systems of which they are members. (Dilts, 2003, pp.179-235) The awakening role goes beyond all previous roles to support another person by providing contexts and experiences which bring out the best of that persons understanding of love, self and spirit, awakening others through his own integrity and congruence and putting people in touch with their own missions and visions by being in full contact with his own vision and mission. The spiritual level has to do with peoples perceptions of the larger systems to which they belong and within which they participate. These perceptions relate to a persons sense of for whom or for what their actions are directed, providing a sense of meaning and purpose for their actions, capabilities, beliefs and role identity. (Dilts, 2003, pp. 237-283) Considering the role of the inquirer, and the educational institution as a community of inquirers, the roles identified by Dilts provide useful specificity and diversity for their embodiment. Modeling NLP Modeling, as discussed by Dilts (1998), is a function of two fundamental dimensions: consciousness (knowing) and competence (doing), where having mastery of a skill is both being able to do what you know and to know what you are doing. (P. 49) He explains that the critical behavioural and psychological elements that allow one to do something well are largely unconscious. This makes it very challenging to 22

provide direct descriptions of the processes responsible for ones own exceptional capabilities. One of the goals is to draw out, identify and utilize ones unconscious competencies to better understand, enhance and transfer them to others. In developing the awareness and skill to perform masterfully, one moves through four stages of learning as depicted in Figure A.

At the stage of unconscious competence you dont know what you dont know. You dont know you lack a skill or even that the skill exists since you never made any attempt to perform it. You may not have enough knowledge or experience to either understand or apply a principle or skill. At the conscious incompetence stage, you know that you dont know. Here, you are made aware that you lack a skill. As a learner, you have enough knowledge and/or experience to realize that you are not able to understand or apply a principle or skill. This is the most uncomfortable part of the learning process, feeling threatened, insecure and perhaps even fearing failure for lacking something. This is a critical point in the process where the learner either turns away or tries to engage in the process of consciously attempting to acquire the missing or needed skill. When you know that you know, you have reached the conscious competence stage. At this point, you have reached the threshold of knowledge necessary to understand and communicate about a principle or skill, but do not have the threshold of experience required to consistently apply or enact the principle or skill. Unconscious competence is when you dont know that you know. This stage is marked by having the ability to consistently perform effectively without the need for conscious effort or awareness. At this point the skill is completely installed and you no longer require conscious awareness to function at an expert level. This is where wellentrenched habits reside.

23

Mastery is when a learner has reached the threshold of experience and knowledge necessary to consistently apply or enact a principle or skill as well as to understand and communicate about the principle or skill. Many may be perceived as being masterful in their performance but are unable to communicate successfully how they are able to attain that level of expertise. The up and down arrows between conscious and unconscious competence in Figure A, represent the dynamic movement between conscious and unconscious competence necessary to consistently perform successfully and communicate how that performance is accomplished. This dynamic does not require for both to occur simultaneously.

Creativity and Creative Inquiry From their research on creativity and innovation, Dilts and Epstein (1991) view the former as a function of the way we organize how we think about something. This ability comes from learning how to use our sensory systems in a way that develops and directs ones imagination, constantly linking together sensory representations to build and update ones map of reality. (P. 7-9) According to the NLP model, knowing occurs when an existing map in your mind matches with something on the outside. To engage in the process of not knowing requies fresh perspectives that allows one to make new and different kinds of maps. The authors explain that children are very creative because they dont have a lot of maps and are making new maps all the time. They recommend challenging ones presuppositions and continue to update ones maps as a way to remain open minded. (P. 11) Considering that individuals differ in their abilities to use their senses, the NLP model makes distinctions in terms of representation systems related to most highly developed, most highly valued, and most conscious. The development of a representational system is determined by the capability to manipulate, organize, synthesize and distinguish information within that system. How much a representational system is valued is determined by the impact it has on a persons behaviour. Consciousness of a representational system is a function of how much a person is aware of the information being processed through that system. (Pp. 13-14) Five key questions are recommended that will facilitate the exploration of the structure of your creative process: 1. What is a context in which you are able to be creative or innovative? 2. What are the goals or objectives that you are attempting to accomplish by being creative or innovative in this context? 3. What do you use as evidence to know you are accomplishing these goals? 4. What do you do to get to the goals? What are some specific steps and activities that you use to creatively achieve your goals in this context? 5. When you experience unexpected problems or difficulties in achieving your goals in this context, what is your response to them? What specific activities or steps do you take to correct them? The total process of creativity not only involves our own mental activity but our interface with the brains and nervous systems of other people. Creativity is influenced 24

and expressed through our interaction and communication with others in a system wider than ourselves. (P. 358) The claim is consistent with Montuori and Purser research (1999) that creativity is a social phenomenon. Barron, Montuori and Barron (1997), compiled an ensemble of creative people to engage in conversation and gain a better understanding and appreciation of creative individuals and their creativity. The principal editor reports that drawing mostly from the twentieth century, they admit they underrepresented contributions from the previous two decades because creative individuals had not yet come forward with stories of their creative work (Baron, 1997, p. 7). This might lead one to ask, What responsibility does a creative individual have toward their work as a social creation and action? What framework and institutional practices would validate meaningful and responsible expressions? Alfonso Montuori has researched the area of creativity extensively and is one of the most evident proponents of creative inquiry. It is interesting to note that as well as being an organizational consultant and a Jazz musician, he is also Professor and Program Director of the Transformative Studies Ph.D. and Transformative Leadership M.A. Programs at California Institute of Integral Studies. From his numerous publications on creativity and inquiry (1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008), we highlight some of the ways Montuori describes creative inquiry: A process of social creativity, as a performance where the product is the process. (1997, p. 36) A conversation in which difference remains and the importance is trust more than truth. (1997, p. 36) A process of inquiry which involves the constant questioning of our own assumptions as well as those of others, which suspends immediate judgment, the obliteration of differences, and hierarchical classification. (1998, p. 25) The aim is to approach all positions lightly and playfully, with an openness which permits ambiguities, complexities, uncertainties, and the widest possible range of ideas to arise as the source of creativity. (1998, p. 25) Inquiry itself involves a plurality of narratives, and that these narratives are created in the telling, in the exchange created by listening, learning, and participation in the love of knowledge.(1998, p. 31) Creative inquiry, as inquiry and specifically as the academic kind, is characterized by joy, wonder, passion, hope and conviviality. (2008, p. 8) In creative inquiry, the person is engaged in a collaborative process of self-creation and self-understanding, as well as in creating an understanding of the world, where the process of learning applies to the person(s), the process and the product. (2008, p. 11) Creative inquiry does not reject memorizing, developing a knowledge base, and reproducing the knowledge of traditional education, but sees them as a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. (2008, p. 11) The focus of Creative inquiry is on our capacity for knowing, for making knowing a process of inquiry that allows us to challenge and explore and connect and create. (2008, p. 16) Inquiry can connect us with our source of inspiration, with our creativity, our sense of mission and ways of being and knowing that constantly open up possibilities and 25

opportunities. To know the world we must know ourselves, and to know ourselves we must know the world. (2008, p. 24) Inquiry becomes self-inquiry, and the process takes on a different, more circular and self-reflective form, and the inquirer also becomes the subject of (self-)inquiry. (2008, p. 24) Inquiry offers an opportunity to access our creative abilities, and through the creation of our work we develop not only our ideas, but also our voice, our identity in the context of the dialogue we are participating in. (2008, p. 25) Theorizing There is another view that proposes Inquiry to be an enactment of a collaborative phenomenon, not in the sense of two heads are better than one but in the sense of a head requires at least two participants. This view has been championed by a group of scholars originating in the discipline of Sociology of Knowledge, particularly Analytic or Interpretive Sociology. As a major proponent, Blum (1970) formulates the concept of inquiring, which he calls theorizing, as a way of knowing and living. He conveys the character of the activity as an expression of self and as a display of mind. Through such inquiry the theorist searches for his self, and his achievement in theorizing is a recovering of his self. As a user of language, and a follower of rules, the inquirer is simultaneously addressing self and community, for the self is essentially public and the community is part of his self. From this perspective, the act of inquiring is described as a self-transforming process, where what one operates upon is ones knowledge of the society as part of ones history, biography, and form of life. Considering how this self-transforming process is done, Blum puts forth the idea that inquiry is the inquirers embodiment of his competence as a product of his methods of knowing. The reflexive turn which essentially characterizes creative inquiry includes reflectiveness and its achievement and its basis as objects of reflection. Doubt is essential to theorizing as an impulse to make problematic because the contemplation of other possibilities is the method of formulating the necessary conditions of sensibility in ones language. It is through such methods that the inquirer comes to constantly recover and articulate the grounds of his own rationality. Blum claims that it is an essential feature that rules for inquiring are impossible to provide because such possibilities are generated through the activity of inquiring and cannot be anticipated in advance of the activity. In other words, to articulate the rules for the activity as a display of inquiry, preempts the process by describing it and is itself not a display of it. Inquiry displays concern not with anything said or written but with grounds of whatever is saidthe foundations that make what is said possible, sensible, conceivable. (On the Beginning of Social Inquiry, McHugh et. al., 1974, p. 2). The point of inquiry is that it makes reference to the inquirers commitment to inquiry and serves to produce its own example of itself. (P. 12-13) It is indeed a challenge for inquiring accounts to exemplify the very practices they describe. By continuously settling the issue of what is to count as an adequate description or explanation of social processes reveals the inquirers version of inquiry. (Silverman, 1975, pp. 1-6) Blum puts the inquiry proposal in this way: I am going to speak about the relationship between the inquirer and his materials. I call that relationship theorizing. I am not merely going to speak 26

about the relationship, but I will attempt to reformulate it, to theorize about it. As an extended example I will use the illustration of someone seeking to formulate his materials where this example becomes my material. I will use this example to formulate the theorist but always myself as one engaged in theorizing. I cannot then be 'outside' of what I am doing. (Blum, 1975, p. 1) Bonner (2001) addresses the problem of reflexivity in modern social inquiry as the need to take responsibility for ones own discourse and the embedded cultural assumptions. The problem of reflexivity concerns the ability of the inquirer to take responsibility for what one says while simultaneously being able to say something substantial about the object of inquiry. The issue of reflexivity points to the limit of human inquiry itself and is a problem facing all inquiry because it pervades concerns with theory, epistemology, methodology, ontology. (Pp. 267-292) Blums and Bonners formulations of inquiry have a deep affinity to the recursiveness of creative inquiry put forward here. What is being suggested is that the creative inquirer has an epistemological responsibility to conduct his inquiries in a way that address the grounds of its intelligibility, i.e., that exposes the assumptions for choosing his way of knowing. This further suggests that as an inquirer, it is also my responsibility to exemplify this conduct and make available the assumptions that are being glossed over. One such assumption is that creativity is inherently a fundamental aspect of inquiry.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER Issues, Controversies, Problems Where are the boundaries of creative inquiry? In the individual? In the organization? In the cultural context? Between them? Awareness of limitations, whether in the individual or organization, generates a greater level of awareness than denying limitations exist. Our approach to inquiry is with epistemological humility and balance. Consider the context of creativity as a personal expression. In one sense, creativity does not necessarily have to occur in the art form. However, it has to satisfy the requirement that it be the expression of a drive to produce change and transform the entire parameter of possibilities. One can add that fueled by passion and life, ones creativity arises out of the human spirit and evokes action upon the world. The transformative process demands a shift and expansion of ones worldview as a liberating experience. A new dimension of possibilities suggest more than generating your own possibilities out of the same old assumptions, i.e., a change in specificity of response by correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives. It also suggests shifting to a higher level of abstraction by engaging your assumptions and allowing the inquiry to influence and redefine the parameters that generated the assumptions in the first place. I am reminded of Gregory Batesons level II learning (learning about learning), as the set of alternatives from which choice is made. From this vantage point, leveling up to the system of parameters would equate to Gregory Batesons level III learning, which involves a corrective change in the system of sets of alternatives from which choice is made. (Tosey, 2006) 27

In Turtles All The Way Down, Grinder (1987) tells the story of Viola Legere, an Acadian high school teacher who ran the drama club. She performed a play called La Segouine alone for two hours without any props. The artistry and commitment the woman displays are impressive (P. 68) Within the context of mental health, what is the difference between Viola Legere when she is being La Segouine and someone who is treated in a mental hospital for delusions? Grinders gives the following answer: There's a tremendous difference between the two. She's an artist. And therefore her madness is gloriously artistic. The madness of someone in an institution typically doesn't have much artistry nor does it respect context; that's La Segouine. But Viola Legere is gloriously, artistically mad when she does those things; and that's why theaters have curtains and scripts have final sentences in them and then they end . . . (P. 69) What is being suggested here is akin to emotional and mental flexibility and resilience, but in a very particular way. Mental instability may suggest an extreme discrete state with defined boundaries. The process of being therapeutic by joining the world of the other is not so much to enter at ones own risk or do it recklessly, but to enter wholeheartedly, 100% passionately committed, so as to be there completely associated and in the moment. In this state you are so fully associated that there is no comparison. What is also being suggested and highly recommended is to enter such a state with full intentions of coming out again. The apparent dilemma is one where you are required to enter the state, but also being able to dissociate to safely come out again. To entertain representations not only of what you are doing but also of other things you might be doing instead, involves partial disassociation, and therefore, means you are not fully and passionately committed to the moment. As you improve at those kinds of commitments, it becomes more and more important at being able to attend to when certain thresholds are reached so you can effective to interrupt the fully committed states. Being in a fully committed state is by definition self-indulgent and cannot occupy a survival position if the context is ignored. The paradox of learning is that one cannot plan for spontaneity and improvisation but needs to allow it to happen. This is the realm of the unconscious where learning is experienced more effectively and potently. Barrett (2000) suggests that Complexity theory claims to know something about the conditions of possibility that lead to creativity and system transformation. The theory proposes that systems that are most creative when they operate with a combination of order and chaos, are able to abandon undesirable behaviors and structures and discover new patterns that are more appropriate to changing circumstances. A core assumption is that to understand social complexity requires cultivating an appreciative way of knowing, an aesthetic that values surrender and wonderment over certainty, an affirmative sense making over problem solving, listening and attunement over individual isolation. Jazz is discussed as a way of exploring characteristics of complexity and improvisation, the paradox of learning to improvise and the aesthetic structures that allow jazz bands to self-organize. In comparison to the Enlightenment, that values certainty, analytic reasoning and the reliance on predictable responses, Jazz values wonderment and ignorance, allowing for intuitive and empathic connection. The improvisation of jazz musicians involves an aesthetic that attempts to be sensitive to the dynamics of emergence and surprise, 28

building up knowledge and skill, only to surrender these stock responses in order to awaken fresh perception, novel action and the capacity to respond simultaneously to other human actors who themselves are attempting novel contributions. To guard against over-reliance on stock skills during improvisation, jazz musicians cultivate surrender by: Exploring and monitoring the edge of competence; Developing provocative learning relationships that simultaneously support and challenge; Creating incremental disruptions that demand opening up to unexplored paths. Barrett poses the following question: What would our organizations look like if managers and executives were encouraged to recapture a poetic wisdom, to be suspicious of comfortable routines, to create provocative learning relationships, to see appreciation and affirmative engagement as a core task and to value wonder over suspicion, surrender over defensiveness and listening and attunement over selfpromotion? The relevance to the process of inquiry is with respect to embodying a fully committed engagement in the process. Creative inquiry is understood here as what gets conveyed by the way the inquirer relates to his material. If the burden is on capturing the inquiry, then what gets conveyed is an attitude of collecting, accumulating, controlling and regurgitating knowledge. If the inquirer relates to his material with an attitude of an explorer, a collaborator, with a sense of playfulness, curiosity and awe, then what is being conveyed is trust, comfort and a willingness to tolerate limitations, boundaries, ambiguity and uncertainties. To be preoccupied with inquiry for the purpose of describing it and capturing it in action means you are not engaged fully enough to be conveying the spirit of inquiry. There is an anecdotal story where a famous dancer was asked to describe what she experienced during the dance and her response was that if she could describe it she would not have a need to dance it. We are suggesting that on the on the one hand, the context of inquiry be defined and the boundary conditions be respected, and on the other hand, to ensure there is no interference within the context for the inquirer to exercise his full and primary responsibility for the inquiry. With self-reference as the central dynamic, self-inquiry is essentially transformative and generative as a process of learning and personal growth. Self-inquiry is necessarily always a work in progress and a never-ending narrative. The different versions of inquiry presented above ultimately reference that which provides the basis for their intelligibility, i.e., the epistemological framework of the inquirer. The multi-faceted perspectives allow one to approach inquiry in many different ways: as a way of relating as a way of knowing that is reflexive as a way of being aware of differences, boundaries and distinctions as a way of meaning as a way of constructing our self, others and our world as a way of knowing the limitations of knowing as a way of modeling and applying how we represent our experiences and generate choice in our lives 29

Creative inquiry as conceived in this chapter is understood as the responsible enactment of a relationship between the inquirer and the by-product of his self-reflective explorations into how sense-making is a recursive process that accounts for its own productions. Explorations of the grounds of knowing ultimately point back to the inquirer conducting the exploration. Inquiring into such a process, necessarily involves a change in perspective or perceptual position, a logical level shift in abstraction that transforms one into an other. It is this shift that is experienced as the unfamiliar and the uncomfortable as the inquirer moves closer to the boundaries of his own familiar way of knowing. Learning does not occur unless one steps outside oneself and experiences what has not been experienced before. This critical moment, this crisis in confronting the unknown, is a necessary requirement. The dialogue can occurs with oneself as an other, with other inquirers through their ideas and their work, through immersion in other cultures and so on. Solutions and Recommendations Inquiry that is self-inquiry inevitably leads to the transformation of the inquirer. This is a spiral and expanding process of adaptation in the individual as a self-organizing system. One possible way of describing what gets conveyed in inquiry is to consider the following line of thought. Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967) articulated a metacommuicational axiom of the pragmatics of communication as one cannot not communicate. (P. 50) From this axiom, they derived two aspects of communication; the content (informational) and the relationship (what sort of message is it to be taken as). They go on to explain that the more spontaneous and healthy the relationship, the more the relationship aspect of communication recedes into the background; and conversely, the more the relationship is characterized by constant struggle or sick, the less important the content aspect of the communication becomes. (P. 51) In the Series Forward to The Parallax View, iek (2006) uses the concept of a short circuit as a metaphor for a critical reading. This latter usage is similar Keeneys (1981) description of the two-fold goals of therapy: In terms of cybernetics, the first goal involves establishing appropriate selfcorrective feedback. This occurs when symptomatic behavior can be expressed in a way that allows an individual, couple, or family to encounter the absurdity of the premises underlying their behavior, interaction, or choreography. The second goal of change concerns the alternative structures a system will generate following correction of its erroneous premises. We will soon see that the new patterns and structures a system evolves are usually a surprise to both therapist and client. (P. 168) (Emphasis mine) Also recall one of Montuoris descriptions of inquiry as A conversation in which difference remains and the importance is trust more than truth. (1997, p. 36). Putting all these pieces of the inquiry puzzle together might suggest that in a relationship between inquirers, a healthy relationship requires a careful balance between maintaining high trust and encountering sufficient absurdity or short circuit to generate corrective action resulting in a novel experience or surprise. To open up the possibility for learning opportunities, the inquirer undergoes adaptive maneuvers. Self-inquiry, always in need 30

of negotiating its own intelligibility, is an issue as an unfinished product. The responsibility of the inquirer is to always recover what such attempts necessarily cover over in the process of articulating the inquiring process. Such self-referential explorations can be very fruitful and productive when they occur in contexts such as educational and research settings and psychotherapeutic environments. A careful balance has to be attained and respected between reinforcement and encouragement to preserve the relationship between learners and inquirers. The after-effects of learning may not be as obvious as when returning to the point where the inquiry originated. At that point you notice that something has changed: Where does the transformation lie? In my inquiries I have experienced a strange mixture of melancholy and excitement, sensing the absence of comfort and familiarity of previous explorations and readings. Experiencing the unfamiliar becomes a process of negotiating with my own epistemology. The process of creative inquiry involves taking risks and feeling potential discomfort and anxiety. Paying close attention to the emotional response of our approach to creative inquiry is critical. Emotions are more appropriately and effectively experienced and managed from the position of the outcome they are intended to serve rather than by how pleasant or unpleasant they are. The first step in using your emotions appropriately is to recognize what they are signalling you about; and the second step is to respond properly to that message. As we risk experiencing the limits of our knowledge and the anxiety it provokes, we can examine how we respond with discomfort or respond to the discomfort. From the former position, the response will likely be one of default in an attempt to prevent or reduce the anxiety. Responding with discomfort, anxiety or other negative emotions will likely persuade you to approach inquiry in unproductive ways. By considering the process as irrelevant or of no value, you would likely ignore the process or not feel very motivated to engage in it; by fearing the process, you would probably find reasons for avoiding or giving up on it or terminating it prematurely. Ways to minimize the negative impact might include shortening the time you move through the experience by quickening the pace of your inquiry, reducing the importance and or intensity of the experience of discomfort or anxiety. Responding appropriately to the discomfort or anxiety generated by the process of inquiry and learning, will likely be based on the best choice that will serve the purpose of the inquiry. Recognizing what anxiety is signalling, it is letting you know that there is something in your future for which you need to prepare better or avoid the situation altogether. This ability to choose will provide greater opportunity to become actively engaged in moving toward becoming curious about the unknown rather than disengaging and moving away from discomfort and anxiety. On the other hand, the process can be transformed to a sense of actively moving toward the anticipated outcome becoming excited, curious about the importance of the information sought by feeling compelled to search for the answer to a posed question or exploration. As a creative inquirer, ones concern is with the impact that the present work will have as an invitation for further dialogue and inquiry. Although other selections from Creators On Creating would have served their purpose equally well, the issue at hand is the value of the readings usability. Equally pertinent, is the usability of this work and its relationship to the overall discourse of creativity. That remains to be explored as a challenge to the readers own inquiry. 31

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Montuori and Purser (1999) reviewed numerous research findings from many fields and reached the conclusion that creativity occurs in a network of mutually interactive and causal relationships, extending from the genetic to the global. (p. 31) This suggests that creativity as a social phenomenon, cannot be isolated to a few simple discrete factors, but is embedded in a multi-level matrix of relationships and patterns involving human interaction, language, knowledge, and social institutions. Emphasizing that the importance of understanding and creating the conditions for creativity deserves attention, Montuori and Purser expressed an eagerness to see the development of collaborative interdisciplinary research projects. In support of the thesis that the discourse of creativity is the venue (in its entirety) for creative inquirers, one can creatively reframe the messages made by Baron, and by Montuori and Purser, as directives to enact rigorous imagination and imaginative rigor with multiple perspectives to ensure both as a pursuit of greater understanding and scholarly marketability. With the conflation of creative inquiry, and social creativity, we can better appreciate the discourse in the direct or indirect production, distribution and consumption of creativity and inquiry. Discourse is understood to include not only language, but the rules governing the choice and use of language. It also includes a framework of thought, meaning and action that creates and maintains knowledge, reality and truth. In a report on UK government policy on the creative industries, called Creativity: from discourse to doctrine?, Philip Schlesinger (2006) argues for the proposition that creativity has established itself as a hegemonic term in an increasingly elaborated framework of ideas that is now taken for granted that it is a mark of insanity or even worse, political irrelevance to question its assumptions. (p. 4) As a discourse, it architecturally optimizes the relationship between idea, their exploitation and business practices (2006, p. 10). In the context of the discourse of creativity, the following distinctions are offered, the first three of which come from Schlesingers (2006, p. 10) reference to the Cox Review (2005): Creativity is the generation of new ideas - either new ways of looking at existing problems, or of seeing new opportunities, perhaps by exploiting emerging technologies or changes in markets. Innovation is the successful exploitation of new ideas. It is the process that carries them through to new products, new services, new ways of running the business or even new ways of doing business. Design is what links creativity and innovation. It shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users or customers. Design may be described as creativity deployed to a specific end. The experience of creativity: Although on the surface it may appear as an irreducible epiphenomenon unique to each individual, one must also consider the social framework and institutional infrastructure that validates certain experiences to count as creative and other as not, and who is entitled to them that others as not. This also includes experiencing others expressions of creativity, and thereby vicariously participating in the real experience to some degree. Entire industries, supported by institutional infrastructures, are created for the sole purpose of 32

capitalizing on the difference between an original, a copy and an imitation, but that will be a topic for another article. Expression of creativity: particularly in the global network, the cultural context is critical in considering what is perceived as a creative expression and how are such perceptions and expressions get validated and by whom and for how long? Creative product: Within the discourse of creativity, any aspect that gets produced, distributed and consumed qualifies. Creative interactions and relationships: The embodiment and participation in the production, distribution and consumption of creative products. The discourse of creativity: Ways of thinking in which power, language and institutional practices combine at historically specific points to produce particular ways of thinking about creativity as experience, expression, product and relationship. Barrons contribution to Creators On Creating (1997) serves the purpose of introducing the subject matter of creativity while eliciting a compelling response from the reader to orient to it as a commodity increasing in value. That is the purpose of any bookto set up an expectation of value for the reader and reassuring him of it worth. Barron set up an intellectual environment of curiosity and inquiry to reinforce responses intended for distribution of its usefulness, potential popularity and market value. He admits to the quality of the environment as being an important condition for producing and supporting creativity and creative individuals. (pp. 19-20) One can conceive the value of Barons contribution not only for its analyzability, but also for its usability. His position on creative environmentslike his Introduction as such an environment, provides varied opportunities for self-expression and personal involvement, (p. 19) and it stimulate[s] flexibility and spontaneity in the people who are part of it. (p. 20) Likewise, it can serve as an indication for introducing how an inquiry of the proceeding works will be related to as their usability are explored. As engaged and committed participants in the production, distribution and consumption of creativity, creative inquirers are a commodity whose future marketability depends on their very commitment to scholarly inquiry. The current work has been presented as an embodiment of creative inquiry concerned with the discourse of creativity, while also participating in the discourse and thereby enhancing the value of the inquiry for its usefulness and future marketability of both the inquirer in support of the institution supporting this activity. To stimulate a dialogue of inquiry the following questions are posed to the reader: What is the creative product in inquiry? What role might the creative product embody in the production, distribution and consumption of creativity and inquiry? What is the inquirers relationship to the discourse of inquiry? In what contexts can such a relationship flourish and how?

CONCLUSION Our inquiry into the epistemology of creative inquiry as my reading of the material presented in this chapter was ultimately a display of self-inquiry. The multiple ways 33

discussed that one can learn how to know are not intended as a bag of tricks or as a list of recipes to follow. These ways of knowing are designed to be generative, to discover and generate new ways of knowing how to know. Their adoption requires the wisdom to consider their context for explorations into self-discovery. Creating the choice of how to know is the ultimate responsibility the inquirer embodies in his inquiries. The inquirers continuous challenge is to engage in inquiring experiences, interactions and dialogues that examine the intelligibility of their epistemology, that is, how to creatively transform, promote and model creative inquirersas academic leaders in their communityto generatively optimize the learning environment of the organization or educational institutions to which they belong. As a creative inquirer, my concern with the value that this work and its relationship to the overall discourse of inquiry will have is an invitation for future dialogue and inquiry. The challenge to the readers own inquiry will be a function of his willingness to enter into a dialogue with this chapter as the material for his self-inquiry. As an enactment of enigmatic irony, inquirys insatiable need to display its refusal to settle for what can be known is its own reward.

APPENDIX A: PROBLEMATIZATION PROCEDURE 1. Understand the subject or the question (the definition of concepts and links between them). 2. Acquire a sufficient amount of knowledge pertinent to the subject or the question to problematize. a. The Internet is a fantastic library and also a trap to avoid. In order to benefit from the Internet in the scholarly world, you must learn to discern and discard many sources that are unreliable. b. Libraries are still a fantastic source for many things that cannot be found on the Internet, e.g. recent books, verifiable sources, etc. 3. Research (note-taking, making folders of notes, etc.) At this stage, you want to acquire information, but without yet contemplating any responses or conclusions. Dont attempt to answer your questions. Attempt to write good questions, and questions of questions. a. Precisely what is the subject? b. What are possible interrelated issues? c. What are the implications? d. At this stage, often one might have thought of group of questions perhaps five or ten. However, you want to keep developing more. Normally, there are many relevant questions you may want to be asking perhaps thirty or fifty!! 4. Question development. a. Creative Phase begin to delimit the subject and identify the issues at play, e.g.: i. The Question Method (who, what, where, when, how, which, and why) ii. The Brainstorming Method (other questions that come to mind) 34

b. Comparative Phase compare the question development you have done so far with problematization examples given below. c. Critique and Focalization Phase i. Identify the main thread of inquiry and the links between the diverse questions formulated; eliminate the inappropriate questions, and replace them with other questions that are more pertinent to the main question. d. Reformulation Phase i. Reformulate the main question around which revolve all the other questions; the surrounding questions should all be questions that analyze and deepen the main question. e. Regrouping Phase i. Regroup the questions according to two schema 1. before and after 2. complimentary and congruent 5. Reformulate the main question if necessary. 6. Produce an essay in the form of the development of an argument, including iterations of interrogation, affirmation and more interrogation (20% length of the final essay) a. Write an outline that will organize and develop your argument including the analysis of all of the sub-questions that you are using to support the argument regarding your main question. You may want to keep the outline in question form, keeping your mind open on the question for as long as possible. b. Then you might rewrite the outline once more in the form of both assertions and further questions. c. This is the text that will serve as a point of departure for your argument. It should contain enough details and guiding ideas with which to develop the whole argument. If you are writing a twenty-page essay double-spaced, then you will want to write a four-page problematization essay.

APPENDIX B: KEY NLP PRESUPPOSITIONS I. The Map is Not the Territory. 1. People respond to their own perceptions of reality. 2. Every person has his or her own individual map of the world. No individual map of the world is any more real or true than any other. 3. The meaning of a communication to another person is the response it elicits in that person regardless of the intent of the communicator. 4. The wisest and most compassionate maps are those which make available the widest and richest number of choices as opposed to being the most real or accurate. 5. People already have (or potentially have) all of the resources they need to act effectively. 6. People make the best choices available to them given the possibilities and capabilities that they perceive available to them from their model of the world. Any behavior no matter how evil, crazy or bizarre it seems is the best choice available to the person at that point in time. If given a more appropriate choice 35

(within the context of their model of the world), the person will be more likely to take it. 7. Change comes from releasing the appropriate resource, or activating the potential resource, for a particular context by enriching a persons map of the world. II. Life and Mind Are Systemic Processes. 1. The processes that take place within a person, and between people and their environment, are systemic. Our bodies, our societies and subsystems all of which interact with and mutually influence each other. 2. It is not possible to completely isolate any part of a system from the rest of the system. People cannot not influence each other. Interactions between people form feedback loops such that people will be effected by the results that their own actions make on other people. 3. Systems are self-organizing and naturally seeking states of balance and stability. There are no failures only feedback. 4. No response, experience or behavior is meaningful outside the context in which it was established or the response it elicits next. Any behavior, experience or response may serve as a resource or limitation depending on how it fits in with the rest of the system. 5. Not all interactions in a system are on the same level. What is positive on one level may be negative on another level. It is useful to separate behavior from selfto separate the positive intent, function, belief, etc. that generate the behavior from the behavior itself. 6. At some level all behavior is (or at one time was) positively intended. It is or was perceived as appropriate given the context in which it was established, from the point of view of the person whose behavior it is. 7. Environments and context change. The same action will not always produce the same result. In order to successfully adapt and survive, a member of a system needs a certain minimum amount of flexibility. That amount of flexibility has to be proportional to the variation in the rest of the system. As a system becomes more complex, more flexibility is required. 8. If what you are doing is not getting the response you want, then keep varying your behavior until you do elicit the response.

REFERENCES
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The Structure of Magic: A book about language and therapy (Vol. 1). Palo Alto, California, United States of America: Science and Behavior Books Inc. Baron, F. (1999). Social Creativity: An Introduction. In A. Montuiri, & R. E. Ourser, Social Creativity Volume 1 (pp. 1-45). New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc. Barron, F. (1997). Introduction. In F. Barron, A. B. Montuori, F. Barron, & A. B. Montuori (Eds.), Creators On Creating (pp. 1-21). New York, New York, United States of America: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A necessary unity. New York: Ballantine Books Inc.

36

Bateson, G. (1972). Metalogue: What is a instinct? In G. Bateson, Steps To An Ecology of Mind: A revolutionary approach to man's understanding of himself (pp. 38-58). New York: Ballantine Books. Bateson, G. (1972). Style, Grace, and Information in Primitive Art. In G. Bateson, Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man's understanding of himself (pp. 128-156). Toronto: Ballantine Books. Bateson, G., & Bateson, M. C. (1987). Angels Fear: Towards an epistemology of the sacred. New York: Bantam Books.

Berman, M. (1999). The Two Faces of Creativity. In A. Montuori, & R. E. Purser, Social Creativity Volume 1 (pp. 83-104). New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc.
Blum, A. F. (1970). Theorizing. In J. D. Douglas, Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge (pp. 301-319). Chicago: Uldine Publishing Company. Blum, A. F. (1975). The Social Construction of Other: Jesus and the Cow. Amsterdam Festival of Social Sciences, (p. 23). Amsterdam.

Bonner, K. M. (2001). Reflexivity and Interpretive Sociology: The case of analysis and teh problem of nhilism. Human Studies , 24, 267-292. Cameron-Bandler, L., & Lebeau, M. (1986). The Emotional Hostage: REscuing your emotiuonal life. San Rafael, California, United States of America: FuturePace, In.c. Cameron-Bandler, L., Gordon, D., & Lebeau, M. (1985). The EMPRINT Method: A guide to reproducing competence. San Rafael, California, United States of America: FuturePace, Inc.
Cox, S. G. (2005). Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK's Strenths. London: HMSO. DeLozier, J. (n.d.). MASTERY, NEW CODING AND SYSTEMIC NLP. (J. Lawley, Ed.) Retrieved June 1, 1986, from The Clean Collection: http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/DeLozier.html Dilts, R. B., Epstein, T., & Dilts, R. W. (1991). Tools for Dreamers: Strategies for creativity and the structure of innovation. Capitola: Meta Publications. Dilts, R. (2003). From Coach to Awakener. Capitola, California, United States of America: Meta Publications. Dilts, R. (1998). Modeling with NLP. Capitola, California, United Stes of America: Meta Publications. Dilts, R. (n.d.). Presuppositions. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from NLP University: http://www.nlpu.com/Articles/artic20.htm Dilts, R. (199). Sleight of Mouth: The magic of conversational belief change. Capitola, California, United States of America.

37

Dilts, R., & DeLozier, J. (1997). Map and Territory Part 1. Anchor Point , 11 (5), 19-28. Dilts, R., & DeLozier, J. (1997). Map and Territory Part 2. Anchor Point , 11 (6), 3-11. Eisner, E. W. (2003). Artistry in Education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 47 (3), 373-384. Grinder, J., & Bandler, R. (1976). The Structure of Magic (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, California, Unit4ed Staes of America: Science and Behavior Books Inc. Grinder, J., & DeLozier, J. (1987). Turtles All The Way Down: Prerequisites To Personal Genius. Bonny Doon: Grinder, DeLozier and Associates. Grinder, J. (n.d.). The Sins of Our Fathers. Retrieved June 1, 2002, from http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/: http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/art_sins.htm Juster, N. (1961). The Phantom Tollbooth. United States of America: Yearling. Kearney, R. (1999). The Narrative Imagination. In A. Montuori, & R. E. Purser, Social Creativity Volume 1 (pp. 61-82). New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc. Keeney, B. (1983). Aesthetics of Change. New York: The Guilford Press. Korzybski, A. (1949). Science and Sanity: An introduction to non-aristotelian systems and genral semantics (3rd Edition ed.). Garden City, New York, United States of America: Country Life Press Corporation. Kuhn, T. K. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lebeau, M. (Performer). (1984). Negotiation: Winning More Than Money. [CD]. California, United States of America: M. Lebeau. Martinello, M. L., & Cook, G. E. (2000). Interdisciplinary Inquiry in Teaching and Learning (2nd Edition ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. McConkey, J. (2004). Knowledge and Acknkowledgement: 'Epistemic Injustice' as a Problem of Recognition. Politics , 24 (3), 198-205. McHugh, P., Raffel, S., Foss, D. C., & Blum, a. (1974). On The Beginning of Social Inquiry. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Montouri, A. a. (1999). Creative Inquiry Volume 1. Cresskill: Hampton Press Inc. Montuori, A. (1998). Creative Inquiry: From instrumental knowing to love of knowledge. In J. Petrankar, Light of Knowledge. Oakland: Dharma Publishing. Montuori, A. (1997). Social Creativity, Academic Discourse, and the Improvisation of Inquiry. ReVision , 20 (1), 34-37. Montuori, A. (2008). The Joy of Inquiry. Journal of Transformative Education , 8-26.

38

Montuori, A. (2006). The Quest for a New Education: From Oppositional Identities to Creative Inquiry. ReVision , 28 (3), 4-20. Morin, E. (1999). Seven Complex Lessons in Education For The Future. Paris: UNESCO. Roy, D., Kustra, E., & Borin, P. (2003). What is a Good Inquiry Question? Retrieved January 10, 2010, from Centre for Leadership in Learning: http://www.mcmaster.ca/cll/inquiry/good.inquiry.question.htm Silverman, D. (1975). Reading Castaneda: A prologue to the social sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Stigliano, T. (1999). Creativity, Romanticism, and the Rise of Consumerism. In A. Montuori, & R. E. Purser, Social Creativity Volume 1 (pp. 105-132). New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc. Tosey, P. (2006). Bateson's Levels of Learning: A Framework For Transformative Learning? Universities' Forum for Human Development Conference, (p. 16). Tilburg. Watzlawick, P. (1984). Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. In P. Watzlawick, & P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The Invented Reality: How do we know what we beleive we know? (U. B. Lunk, Trans., pp. 95-116). New York, New York, United States of America: W. W. Norton and Company. Watzlawick, P. (1990). Therapy Is What You Say It Is. In J. K. Zeig, & S. G. Gilligan (Eds.), Brief Therapy: Myths, methods, and metaphors. New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.

iek, S. (2006). The Parallax View. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS Context: The framework surrounding a particular event. If a framework changes, the response to the event will change. Epistemology: A knowledge system implicated in the sense that an individual makes of himself, others and the world around. All knowledge systems have the ability to reference themselves which is manifested in self-awareness. Experience: The process of sensing, feeling and perceiving the world, being aware and reacting to the world. Inquiry: An epistemological performance where the product is the process. Knowledge: Application of data and information as a function of the thresholds of our available means of perception. Learning: Adaptive responses with long lasting effects resulting from experience. Meaning: A function of the relationship between a representation and what it represents, so that depending on the degree of the representation, the resulting meaning will range from limited to comprehensive. 39

Model: A map or representation with similar structure to what it represents, which accounts for its usefulness. Recursion: A hierarchically structured system of self-reference as in meta-cognition. For example, attending to ones attention while engaged in self-inquiry. State: The total ongoing mental and physical conditions from which a person operates.

ADDITIONAL READING SECTION

Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1982). Reframing: Neuro-Linguistic programming and the transformation of meaning. (S. Andreas, & C. Andreas, Eds.) Moab, Utah: Peal People Press. Bateson, G., & Bateson, M. C. (1987). Angels Fear: Towards an epistemology of the sacred. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Bantom Books. Bateson, M. C. (1972). Our Own metaphor: A personal account of a conference on the effects of conscious purpose on human adaptation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral Vision: Learning along the way. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. Bateson, M. C. (2004). Willing To Learn: Passages of personal discovery. Hanover, New Hampshire: Steerforth Press. Blum, A. (2003). The Imaginative Structure of the City. Montral & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Blum, A., & McHugh, P. (Eds.). (1979). Friends, enemies, and Strangers: Theorizing in art, science , and everyday life. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum, A., & Mchugh, P. (1984). Self-Reflection in the Arts and Sciences. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press Inc. Bonner, K. (1997). A Great Place to Raise Kids: Interpretation, Science, and the Urban-Rural Debate. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Bristol, C. M. (1948). The Magic of Believing. New York: Cornerstone Library. Bruner, J. S. (1964). On Knowing: essays for the left hand. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). (1956). LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, and REALITY: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Haper Collins Publishers. Deering, A., Dilts, R., & Russell, J. (2002). Alpha Leadership: Tools for business leaders who want more from life. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

40

Doige, N. (2007). The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of personal truth from the frontiers of brain science. New York: Viking. Douglas, J. D. (Ed.). (1970). Understanding Everyday Life. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine Publishing Company. Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man's Search for Meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Pocket Books. Grinder, J., & Bandler, R. (1981). TRANCE-formations: Neuro-Lingistic Programming and the structure of Hypnosis. (C. Andreas, Ed.) Mohab, Utah: Real People Press. Heidegger, M. (1961). An Introduction to Metaphysics. (R. Manheim, Trans.) Garden City, New York: Yale University Press. Hofstadter, D. R. (1980). Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Vintage Books. Hofstadter, D. R. (2007). I am Strange Loop. New York: Basic Books. Hofstadter, D. R., & Denett, D. C. (1981). The Mind's I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul. New York: Basic Books,, Inc. James, W. (1977). The Writings of William James: A comprehensive edition. (J. J. McDermott, Ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago press. Keeney, B. (2009). The Creative Therapist: The art of awakening a session. New York: Routledge. Kostere, Kim; Malatesta, Linda. (1990). Maps, Models and the Real Structure of Reality: NLP Technology in Psychotehraspy. Portland, Oregon: Metamorphous Press. Linge, D. E. (Ed.). (1977). Philosophical Hermeneutics: Hans-Georg Gadamer. (D. E. Linge, Trans.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, Ltd. McCulloch, W. S. (1965). Embodiments of Mind. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. Nachmanovitch, S. (1990). Free Play: Inprovisation in life and art. Los Angeles, California: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. Palmer, P. J. (2007). The Courage to Teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Russel, B. (1962). Essays in Skepticism. New York: The Philosophical Library. Sallis, J. (1990). Echos: After Heidegger. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Schank, R. (1988). The Creative Attitude: Learning ti ask and answer the right questions. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

41

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster. Watzlawick, P. (1978). The Language of Change: Elements of therapeutic communication. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Watzlawick, P. (1984). The Invented Reality: How do we know what we beleive we know? (P. Watzlawick, Ed.) New York, New York, United States of America: W. W. Norton and Company. Watzlawick, P. (1990). Mnchausens Pigtail: Or psychotherapy and "reality". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.
Wilden, A. (1980). System and Structure: Essays in communication and exchange (Second ed.). New York: Tavistock Publucations.

42